Copyright suit against US Post Office reveals underlying problemsrelated to copyright laws

Carol Forsloff - Copyright issues continue to create questions for both the artist and user of artistic material in some cases, where artists, visual or performance, maintain their creative work not properly remunerated, including the artist of the famous war memorial stamp depiction of the Korean War while others claim fair use.

In this most recent case, the artist Frank Gaylord, who designed and created the sculptures that are depicted on the stamp that commemorated the 50th anniversary of the peace-signing agreement of the Korean War, is suing for a 10 percent share of the $30.2 million earned by the sale of the stamps. The US Postal Service, it is alleged,  licensed the photograph taken by John Allie, but Gaylord maintains it never got his permission to show his "The Column" art work on the stamp and retail merchandise.

Whereas outright plagiarism is often considered the major threat to an artist's work, and most other artists condemn what they also see as a theft of creative work, there are  far more subtle issues that sometimes swing issues into a no-man's land of controversy where folks no longer know when they may be cited, even for such a simple thing as posting a family video of a child's dancing to a familiar tune for the entertainment of other family members and friends.

In the case of a man called Tony, who runs a music store in the Portland, Oregon area, his daughter had been at Disneyland and was photographed with some of the Disney Characters. Tony's child was so delightful and animated during the video photography that the video put on YouTube became an overnight sensation with 7 million hits and counting. But later, when Tony videoed his little daughter dancing in the living room, he was cited for copyright infringement, as the child was dancing to music from the television set.  The music itself was copyrighted, and Tony's video-taping accented his daughter's dancing. But the copyright was maintained so that the publishing company is free to advertise on the video itself.

Cover songs are often used by musicians to demonstrate their musical abilities to potential employers or for simple entertainment of friends and the public. These days, since YouTube allows the uploading of material in many areas outside of the creative ones, the competition for page views has increased dramatically, so that many musicians find their quality work, including original tunes, at the bottom of a seemingly bottomless dumpster that contains YouTube videos suggestive of incest, rape and some that depict physical violence on many levels. Yet, despite YouTube's written standards, these questionable videos remain a part of the video family, while Tony's video received a citation. Furthermore, many folks may present a cover song and receive no reprimand at all, whereas others doing the same thing with the same song will be asked to take the video down or to allow advertising. The more popular the channel, it appears, the more apt the publisher via YouTube, will respond with a citation of third-party content to allow advertising and prohibit any remuneration by the user. This sometimes includes old gospel songs, classical pieces, and other tunes thought to be in the public domain.

And these citations come with no explanation except the reference to the copyright section of YouTube's Terms of Service.

Tony's video is one of thousands that are not direct and purposefully done depictions of another artist's work, but it reflects the questions that show the problems in the copyright laws and their applications. While direct copying of another person's song is justified  in the mind of the musician by listing it as a "cover",  the application of the rules is ambiguous at best, as many are allowed through the gate, so that cover songs are considered legal by those who do them, while an unlucky group is cited for doing far less.

Most artists want the original owner of creative material to be rewarded for the work and for its use. On the other hand, it is impossible to perform a piece of music written after 1923 without risking a YouTube warning. It is simply a matter of who gets lucky.

In the meantime, the US Post Office is now unlucky, in the sense it too is now on the copyright ropes for having allegedly crossed the line on copyright laws with a photograph that included an artist's sculpture. That might likely mean that some happy tourist who takes a picture of his family in the doorway of a room containing paintings could be cited for copyright infringement by one of the painters even if the focus is not on the paintings but the family vacation and that museum or gallery experience.

Copyright issues and challenges worry musicians on YouTube

[caption id="attachment_14894" align="alignleft" width="300"] Musicians Caravaggio[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society is being challenged by YouTube musicians, as concerns about copyrights continue to grip the up-and-coming talents as well as the old hands of music. What used to be accepted practice is now being carefully reviewed in the new culture of everyone's hand reaching for the pot of gold, and the big boys of the YouTube management not yet forthcoming about what's up.

Most musicians struggle to make a living, if they are pitching at all. Many sit back waiting for that great discovery of their original music or their remake of someone else's material. It is the latter that is now being hammered on YouTube, from various angles. It seems that just about everyone has received a notice of some sort from this ghostly group of individuals who declare they will put an ad on the video, on the side, not necessarily taking down the video itself. Instead the group challenges videos and asserts itself as an organization who will be taking money in representation of copyright owners. On the other hand, there is that gray area, that makes folks wonder if this organization represents anything outside of its own interests.

Only recently has Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society put up a Facebook page. A website is also in that early-creation stage where it is difficult to determine who is involved, how and why.

YouTube "ain't talking," the disgruntled musicians declare, some of whom have had their instrumentals of Beethoven questioned or even the music they use in games. They ask frequently, "What is left in the public domain if an outside group, or just anyone, makes a claim. It's a gold rush with a difference. The problem is that musicians don't harbor that much gold. Even the big guns have to aim higher and higher, taking high-profile ventures, in order to be noticed on the growing stack of wannabes put together with has-beens and the wallflowers waiting to be asked for some time in the dance.

This is what one user responds to the Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society who complains to YouTube about copyright infringement on pieces of music that include Bach and Beethoven: " The Music Publishing Collecting Rights Society is apparently nothing more than a scam. This so called organization that doesn't even have a website or mailing address, has attempted to claim rights on everything from music videos to 'How To Change A Tire' videos. I've won 2 disputes with them without even giving a reason for the dispute. These are simply scammers looking for free advertising." This statement was made about nine months ago.

While frequent assertions about disclaimers and what to say to avoid a copyright issue have been made around the Internet, YouTube is clear about its terms of service. One cannot upload a song, that includes even covers, if the musician cannot substantiate "fair use."  Fair use allows limited use of music material for specific purposes. One of these is education. Journalists are also allowed to use music to illustrate articles or to do reviews. The rest of the folks have to wonder when the copyright police will show up for an arrest. So far folks say it's rare, or never happens; but the threats remain.

Statements such as "I don't own the copyright to this material" essentially red flags a problem to the respective music copyright cops, as the user has already mentioned that the material is copyrighted and is not original. Claiming it is okay because it is a "cover" or an additional rendition of a song done by someone else won't help you, according to YouTube. Yet YouTube's customer service is virtually non-existent, as users continue to remind each other. YouTube also makes it easy to use the videos for almost everything by its share button and the ability of the user to snatch a video and place it almost anywhere.

So the rules are getting thick, thick enough to be causing some consternation in the ranks. But who is that Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society?  There is no completed website or address out there for the organization presently, at least after some search was done recently of the various conversations around the Internet. And the group often backs off when challenged. It remains a mystery among musicians who wonder what's next in the ever-changing landscape of what's fair and what's not.